AgentBench FC
Agents work five containerized AgentBench environments, ALFWorld, DB, knowledge graph, OS and WebShop, through function-calling prompts instead of the original text format.
Built on the AgentRL framework. The original text-prompt AgentBench stays on the v0.1 and v0.2 tags. The repo shows its own FC results board as an image.
In the authors’ words
The potential of Large Language Model (LLM) as agents has been widely acknowledged recently. Thus, there is an urgent need to quantitatively evaluate LLMs as agents on challenging tasks in interactive environments. We present AgentBench, a multi-dimensional benchmark that consists of 8 distinct environments to assess LLM-as-Agent's reasoning and decision-making abilities. Our extensive test over \num API-based and open-sourced (OSS) LLMs shows that, while top commercial LLMs present a strong ability of acting as agents in complex environments, there is a significant disparity in performance between them and many OSS competitors that are no larger than 70B. We identify the typical reasons of failures in environments and LLMs, showing that poor long-term reasoning, decision-making, and instruction following abilities are the main obstacles for developing usable LLM agents. Improving instruction following and training on high quality multi-round alignment data could improve agent performance. And different from existing assumptions, training on code present ambivalent impacts on different agent tasks. Datasets, environments, and an integrated evaluation package for AgentBench are released at https://github.com/THUDM/AgentBench.
- Level
- Everyday Most adults, without training
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct tops the leaderboard with 70.4%
Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Every run is in the next chart. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders. The best model we track is Claude Sonnet 4.5, at 58.9%.
The newest model with a score here came out in Sep 2025, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Terra
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 16 more
- 70.4 AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct
- 67.7 AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct
- 65.0 AgentRL w/ GLM-4-9B-0414
- 62.0 AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
- 60.0 AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct
- 58.9 Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 58.2 Claude Sonnet 4
- 53.2 Claude 3.7 Sonnet
- 52.2 GPT-5
- 51.4 AgentLM-70B
- 49.3
DeepSeek-R1
- 45.1 AgentLM-13B
- 42.7 AgentLM-7B
- 40.9 o3-mini
- 40.8
Qwen2.5-72B
- 39.7 o4-mini
- 39.6 GPT-4o
- 37.2
Qwen2.5-32B
- 36.3 Hephaestus-8B-IFT
- 36.1
DeepSeek-V3
- 31.9 Hephaestus-8B-Base
- 27.2
Qwen2.5-14B
- 1 AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct 70.4%
- 2 AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct 67.7%
- 3 AgentRL w/ GLM-4-9B-0414 65%
- 4 AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct 62%
- 5 AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct 60%
- 6 Claude Sonnet 4.5 58.9%
- 7 Claude Sonnet 4 thinking 58.2%
- 8 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 53.2%
- 9 GPT-5 52.2%
- 10 AgentLM-70B 51.4%
- 11
DeepSeek-R1 May 2025 49.3%
- 12 AgentLM-13B 45.1%
- 13 AgentLM-7B 42.7%
- 14 o3-mini 40.9%
- 15
Qwen2.5-72B 40.8%
- 16 o4-mini 39.7%
- 17 GPT-4o Nov 2024 39.6%
- 18
Qwen2.5-32B 37.2%
- 19 Hephaestus-8B-IFT 36.3%
- 20
DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025 36.1%
- 21 Hephaestus-8B-Base 31.9%
- 22
Qwen2.5-14B 27.2%
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct | 70.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 2 | AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct | 67.7% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 3 | AgentRL w/ GLM-4-9B-0414 | 65% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 4 | AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct | 62% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 5 | AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct | 60% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 6 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 58.9% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | Claude Sonnet 4 | 58.2% | thinking | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | 53.2% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | GPT-5 | 52.2% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | AgentLM-70B | 51.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 11 | | 49.3% | May 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | AgentLM-13B | 45.1% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 13 | AgentLM-7B | 42.7% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 14 | o3-mini | 40.9% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | | 40.8% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | o4-mini | 39.7% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | GPT-4o Nov 2024 | 39.6% | Nov 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | | 37.2% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | Hephaestus-8B-IFT | 36.3% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 20 | | 36.1% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 21 | Hephaestus-8B-Base | 31.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 22 | | 27.2% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard |
Scores at each effort level
Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 58.9% | ||||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | thinking | 58.3% | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4 | thinking | 58.2% | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4 | 57.4% | ||||
| Claude 3.7 Sonnet | 53.2% | ||||
| GPT-5 | 52.2% | ||||
| Claude 3.7 Sonnet | thinking | 50% | |||
| | 49.3% | ||||
| o3-mini | 40.9% | ||||
| | 40.8% | ||||
| o4-mini | 39.7% | ||||
| GPT-4o Nov 2024 | 39.6% | ||||
| | 37.2% | ||||
| | 36.1% | ||||
| | 27.2% |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
Versions
More in Tool use
- AutomationBench In use Agent completes end-to-end business workflows inside a simulated company exposing dozens of REST APIs. Graded on resulting state.
Gemini 4 Carbon 53.9%
- MCP Atlas In use Multi-step workflows over real MCP servers. Scores tool-use competency on realistic tasks.
Muse Spark 1.1 88.1%
- BFCL V4 In use Models call functions and tools, including multi-turn agentic tasks with web search and memory. Checked against expected calls and outcomes.
Qwen3.7-Max 75%
- τ³-bench Banking In use Agents act as banking customer-service reps over many turns with a simulated user, following policy. Pass^1 on the final database state.
Qwen 3.8 Max 55.1%
- Claw-Eval In use 300 human-verified agent tasks (service orchestration, multimodal, multi-turn dialogue) audited via traces and snapshots. Rubric scores with Pass^3 consistency. Claude Sonnet 4.6 81.4%
- DeepSearchQA In use Questions that need multi-step search and synthesis. Final answers graded against references. Kimi K3 95%